Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to resume my comments with respect to the Canada-Panama free trade deal, which we hope will have the same success as Jordan did this past week. I want to acknowledge the members of the opposition who came together to help us move the arrangements for the trade deal with Jordan along. I hope that vision and support that they showed in the last free trade deal carries on this time. I would say to our friends in the loyal opposition, let us not do this for the sake of the opposition members being able to say that they have passed the deal so they as a party can never be told that they do not support free trade deals. I do not believe that is the case. Therefore, as my Cape Breton mother would say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would like to encourage members opposite to share that same vision as we look towards Panama.

When I consider why Canada is doing any trade deals, let alone this free trade deal with Panama, it is really clear from my four years on the international trade committee that with the deals that we have signed, a very aggressive agenda with respect to free trade deals, we do it because it is in Canada's interest. We also acknowledge that it is in the interests of the countries that we trade with as well. What we tried to do is raise the level of quality of life of individuals. Without the ability to work or without solid employment, they do not have those same opportunities.

We trade with every country in the world. That is absolutely clear. Therefore, what we are looking for with Panama, as with the other trade deals that we have negotiated, is a rules-based system that will assist us when there are disputes and will make sure that we eliminate tariffs going from Canada to Panama and from Panama to Canada. That makes a dramatic difference for our country and certainly for theirs. However, there are a few advantages. If it were not in the interests of Canada, why would we consider doing this at all? It would be helpful for members of this House to have a strong sense of what it does mean for all of us to be able to put this deal together.

Clearly, the free trade agreement would require Panama to provide Canada with improved market access in a variety of areas. For those members of Parliament who have agriculture in their ridings, access to Panama in terms of imports of beef, cattle and pork matters. That is done through a combination of tariff cuts and transitional tariff rate quotas. That is very dramatic.

It is rather interesting that in August 2009, Canadian ministers announced that Panama had approved Canada's meat inspector system and lifted its BSE ban on Canadian beef. Those were progressive steps that were being taken with the long-term intent of putting the free trade deal in place.

In June 2010, our ministers announced that Panama had lifted its ban on Canadian cattle. As a result now, federally registered beef and pork meat establishments are able to export to Panama, as are Canadian exporters of cattle.

In addition to that, we put in what has now become a Canadian standard. We put in a labour co-operation agreement and an agreement on the environment. We look to standards for countries that are not as developed as Canada. We ask them to raise their standards as we deal with them. We think that is very important for the quality of life for Panamanians. In some sense it justifies the involvement that we have with them well. We think it is important and necessary for Panama to proceed on that basis.

All provinces would benefit in terms of the improvements of the framework that governs this free trade deal. Quebec, for example, would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on exports relating to agriculture. I mentioned pork and in addition to that industrial and construction machinery, pharmaceutical and aerospace products. To my province of Ontario and my city of London, some key export areas are industrial and construction machinery, electrical and electronic equipment, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and furniture. The western provinces benefit. The Atlantic provinces benefit. There is not one part of Canada that does not benefit as a result of this free trade deal.

Therefore, I would encourage members opposite, as I know that members on this side will when we look to complete Panama, to give their full support, because it is clear that we almost had this done in the last Parliament. Then an election was put upon the Canadian people and as a result of that election the free trade deal with Panama died on the order paper. That can happen.

We have had debate upon debate about this. Frankly, I do not believe, as members from both sides may choose to ask some questions today, that there is any question that has not already been asked and answered, both in committee and in the House. That is to be fair to those members who were more recently elected because we covered this at length in our last Parliament.

For any questions members have, we will be candid and clear. I would ask for the sake of Canadian businesses to please help us pass the Panama free trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for basically asking us what we do not like about this deal with Panama. Quite clearly, Panama is a country that encourages tax evasion and money laundering. Its structure is one where there are literally hundreds and hundreds of paper corporations established in that country to take advantage of its lax rules. Does the hon. member have an understanding of what it is costing the Canadian economy for these types of activities: tax evasion, money laundering and the kinds of things the Panamanian government has refused consistently to fall into line on with international standards? Does the member have an answer to that?

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier comments, there is not a question that has not been asked at least once. The question my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, has asked has been answered very candidly several times in the House, both in the last Parliament and this one.

To assure the member I do have some understanding, I would like to think that with my 30 plus years of business before I got into politics I have some understanding of business. I also have some understanding of business relationships, contractual and legal.

I would like to share something with him and the House. I do not know if we can put this to bed forever. Regardless of the answer, it will continue to come back up. However, let me be clear about one thing. Canada committed to implement the OECD standard for the exchange of tax information to combat international tax evasion in 2002. Let me update that now. In 2011, the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented international standards for exchange of information.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to a candid answer. In principle, we in the Liberal Party have supported the Panama free trade agreement. Having said that, while the government has been so focused on a couple of free trade type of agreements, it has been very negligent in other areas. The United States entered into an agreement with Korea which is going to have a huge negative impact on Canada, in particular within the pork industry in provinces like Manitoba.

What is the government doing for the Prairie farmers, particularly the pork farmers in Manitoba, to ensure they will be able to secure those critically important markets in Korea for Manitoba's pork?

Madam Speaker, when it is time to speak to Korea, I would be happy to have that discussion. The issue has come before my international trade committee from time to time. Today the debate is about Panama and I do not want us to lose focus on today's debate. Frankly, the divide and conquer approach confuses issues. We want to be extremely clear that today we are talking about Panama.

Let us talk about Manitoba and western provinces. The Liberal Party in the past has been supportive of our various trade agreements and I hope it will again. When it looks at Panama, Canada will have a unique advantage over other countries because of the arrangement that we made with some $123 billion of business both ways today between Panama and Canada. The western provinces will benefit from Panamanian tariffs on key support interests that include processed food products, cereal, precious stones, fats, oils, paper and paperboard. The western provinces, including Manitoba, will benefit very well by this free trade deal.

Madam Speaker, it is nice to get back to work again and stay focused on additional issues after we unfortunately passed Bill C-38, the budget bill, last night. Today we have to move on to a variety of other issues, whether we like it or not, and I am happy to add a few comments on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The Liberal Party has been in support of this agreement for some time and, in spite of some concerns, which I will outline, we will continue to be in support of free and fair trade.

One of the key concerns with respect to expanding our trading relationship with Panama has been evident with respect to the government's free trade agenda. We must not put aside our domestic practices within the countries with which we are seeking new trade agreements.

As we negotiate free trade agreements, there are some very important issues that we need to keep in mind. Whether they are issues of money laundering, tax evasion, human trafficking or issues of human rights, areas in which we could use our leverage on the agreement to make some improvements in the quality of life for people in those countries with which we are making agreements, but also to have some clear benefits over and above just the dollars and cents factor for Canada.

An additional point that should be kept in mind and one that the government would do well to carefully consider was raised by Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers, someone we see often on the Hill when we are dealing with issues in the auto industry, who recently spoke at the international trade committee. Part of his presentation outlined the following with respect to the lack of apparent benefits, as far as he was concerned, that was being derived by the free trade agreement.

Mr. Stanford pointed out a variety of things and the five longest standing trade agreements were some of the things he talked about. He referred to the trade agreement with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Canada's exports to them grew more slowly than our exports to our non-free trade partners, while our imports surged must faster than with the rest of the world.

Mr. Stanford went on to say that if the policy goal was to boost exports and strengthen the trade balance, then signing free trade deals would be exactly the wrong thing to do in his opinion.

With Colombia there are outstanding issues related to labour and human rights issues that I referred to earlier. The same concerns apply to Jordan as they do to Panama.

With respect to Panama, one of the outstanding concerns has been the issue of tax havens and issues relating to money laundering, which has been talked about a lot in this House over the several years that we have been discussing and debating this particular agreement, as with other agreements.

...what both hon. members fail to realize is the entire issue of extraterritoriality. There are certain things we can do when negotiating with another country and certain things we cannot do because they are beyond our sphere of influence.

Even if it is beyond our sphere of influence, we should always push right to the wall to get clear benefits for Canada. Whether we are talking about human rights, money laundering or other issues pertaining to that, if we can use our leverage, we should be doing it far more forcefully.

Clearly there are benefits on both sides but there are far more benefits in my mind to Panama. Therefore, we should be using that opportunity with these agreements to get everything possible we can get out of it, not only for our country but also for the people who live in the other areas of the world that are affected by many of these agreements.

The question that must be raised is that where there are concerns and issues that would not be acceptable to Canada, we need to know what mechanisms within the agreement should be in place with countries where issues of concern are found to exist and persist. It is a question of signing an agreement and then raising it every once in a while, issues, again, about human rights or money laundering, but being able to do absolutely nothing about it and having them ignore the concerns we are raising.

What kind of strength do we have with these agreements? How many years would we allow all of this to go on before deciding to cancel an agreement because of clear violations of the rules?

Canada is earmarked out there when it comes to doing things right, or at least it used to be. We were well respected in the world because we would follow the agreement, we would ensure the agreements were fair on all sides and we would be respectful of the countries that were trying to grow, better themselves and make a better life for their people. Often we do not use enough of our country's strength to insist that there should be some improvements to areas that we have concerns about.

An example would be the Panamanian situation. When federal government officials testified before the international trade committee earlier last fall, they could not adequately address the money laundering and tax haven issues relating to Panama.

In December 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States, not with Canada. In testimony before the U.S. house ways and means subcommittee on trade on March 30, 2011, the research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch also raised concerns with respect to the money laundering issue in the wake of the agreement between the U.S. and Panama. He said:

Panama promised for eight years to sign a Tax Information Exchange Agreement.... Yet when it finally signed a TIEA with the Obama administration in November 2010, the agreement did not require Panama to automatically exchange information with U.S. authorities about tax dodgers, money launderers and drug traffickers.

Those areas have weaknesses and, because of everybody's interest in signing these agreements, they often take one particular part of the puzzle and accept it and continue to work on the tax information issue or whatever other avenue to ensure that we stop money laundering and drug trafficking. We need to be stronger on these issues and use them as leverage.

In the previous Parliament, concerns were raised with respect to Panama being a tax haven in which instances of tax evasion and money laundering were found. Concerns were raised as to whether a free trade agreement should be proceeded with prior to a clear tax information exchange between Canada and Panama being in place.

We would be far better off to keep going slowly with this process until we have what we want, which is both of those agreements when it comes to sharing the tax. We would then be eliminating opportunities for money laundering, tax havens and other issues rather than signing the agreement and going forward in good faith, which is clearly what the government wants to do and what our party has decided to do as well. As of yet there is still no tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement signed between Canada and Panama nor an intention that it will be done.

The history, as we understand it, is as follows. Panama has asked that Canada enter into a more comprehensive double taxation treaty. Canada refused, asking instead for a more limited TIEA. Panama, which at that time had only entered into double taxation treaties, insisted on a double taxation treaty. Canada has not yet responded to this second request.

I will go back to who is in charge. I think the benefits to Panama are far better than the benefits to Canada so why would we turn around and continue to water down our leverage?

Members should note that all of the DTA's include tax information and exchange obligations between signatory countries based on article 26 of the OECD model convention. As of November 2010, Canada was party to DTA's with 87 countries, with 8 more signed but not yet in effect. As of November 5, 2010, Canada had signed 9 TIEA's, none of which are in effect.

In testimony before the international trade committee on September 29, reference was made to correspondence between Canada and Panama in which the latter was asked whether Panama had responded to the concerns expressed by Canada on the tax haven issue. According to DFAIT officials, no such response had been received.

There are a variety of concerns as we move forward. I know the government is anxious to move this forward but I hope we put in what is best for Canada first and Panama second, not Panama first and Canada second.

Madam Speaker, I was shocked to learn in my research on the subject that there are almost 400,000 corporations registered in Panama, which is four times the number of corporations that we have in Canada. It makes one think that this is not just another developing nation but quite a unique developing nation.

I listened to the member's remarks regarding her fears about money laundering, the tax haven situation and the lack of tax treaties. Would she not agree that Panama itself, through a deliberate strategy, has become a magnate for these corporations that are trying to hide behind the lack of reporting requirements and the lack of transparency? Transparency International has spoken out about countries like Panama.

Did the hon. member watch the national news on TV last night? It had an exposé on Canadian mining companies and what they were doing in Panama. Does she make any kind of connection between Bill C-300 in the last Parliament, which was sponsored by her colleague, about corporate social responsibility and the egregious, outrageous behaviour of Canadian mining companies--

Madam Speaker, my colleague got all his points in order and just about took up the whole five minutes for a response.

I am very concerned with some of those issues and I think I had made those remarks. Signing free trade agreements are good and I believe in free in trade but I also believe in using the leverage that Canada should have to ensure we are doing our job of protecting Canadians and our companies, eliminating opportunities for money laundering and the drug trade, and all the rest.

My colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood had introduced his bill on what goes on in mining. All kinds of exploitation happen around the country and these agreements need to be clear. We need to know the check marks to get out of these deals. Where are our markers on these things when it comes to issue of human rights and so on? Where are the lines where we cancel these agreements, or are we just leaving ourselves wide open to 10 years of complaining and doing nothing if things do not go in the direction we want them to?

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. Basically I am in favour of free trade, especially if it is fair trade, if it benefits all parties and if it does not harm the environment or workers.

I am particularly interested in the issue of signing a free trade agreement with a country that is so well-known for money laundering and will not sign international conventions to prevent it. I would like to hear a little more about how the member feels about that.

Madam Speaker, I suppose that goes back to Canada being the one to sign the agreement when it meets a level of standard that we can say, “It is great that we got this agreement signed”. I would like to ensure that we have everything we need in there to protect Canada's interests and also protect the world's interests.

We should not just be looking at the ultimate dollars and cents that would be transacted. We need to look at what is good for the world. It is not a question of living in isolation and thinking only about Canada. We need to have the safeguards in place to ensure the world will be better off, not just Canada or Panama, within the agreement?

With a variety of things that continue to move forward, I would like to see more safeguards put on this issue. I think it would be very beneficial for the government to ensure there are some safeguards where, if within 12 months of an issue not being dealt with, the government would be able to cancel the agreement. I would much rather see that kind of clause in this agreement.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak on what I think is an important matter for our country and its standing in the world, and that is the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Specifically, I would like to address one important element of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement that has not received a lot of attention, and that is the provisions on government purchasing.

Our government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. Why? According to OECD statistics, government purchasing plays a significant role in the economy of most countries. It accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of a country's GDP, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually around the globe.

These markets present significant opportunities for Canadian suppliers. Through the negotiation of international trade obligations in this area, our government is working hard to enable Canadians to take advantage of these market opportunities. These obligations also support our own domestic interests in obtaining best value for Canadian taxpayers in government procurement. Increasing access, competition and fairness in government procurement serves this overall policy objective.

Lastly, our government actions help to promote an international framework for procurement, a framework that strengthens good governance through efficiency and effective management of public resources and through reducing corruption and conflict of interest in government purchasing around the globe. More accountability, more transparency and more value for taxpayers' dollars all help suppliers, governments and taxpayers to benefit from these efforts.

We seek to accomplish these goals by negotiating agreements such as the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement and specific chapters in Canada's comprehensive free trade agreements. I am happy to report that our government recently welcomed the successful conclusion of negotiations to modernize the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. This agreement was recently tabled before Parliament. As the tabling period ended on June 12, the government will now proceed to implement the agreement. However, our efforts to secure and expand opportunities for Canadian suppliers go well beyond the WTO.

Most of Canada's bilateral free trade agreements, from the North American Free Trade Agreement itself, NAFTA, to those with Chile, Peru and Colombia, have obligations on government purchasing, as they should. These obligations are based on a core set of principles: non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers, transparency and fair process. These principles provide greater public access to information on government purchasing and a fair opportunity for suppliers to compete. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today is another step in our efforts to fulfill these objectives and create jobs and economic prosperity for hard-working Canadians and to reach out to partners who we believe are making progress.

As many would know, Panama has a dynamic and rapidly growing economy, as has been referenced in the House many times, and Canada's businesses have long been interested in gaining or expanding access to this emerging market. Despite the global economic downturn since 2008, Panama's economy continues to show strong signs of growth and improvement in many areas, including some of the expressed concerns we have heard about tax laws. In fact, it is of interest to note that its political stability and progressive business environment have helped Panama achieve consistent average growth of 6% to 7% over the past several years.

Panama is also an ideal location for Canadian businesses seeking to expand and build long-term business ventures in the region. Often the most difficult contract to secure is the first one, so this agreement would make it easier for Canadian businesses to establish a credible presence in the region.

Panama's government and its markets, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, transportation and services, represent a significant opportunity for Canadian suppliers, particularly those in the engineering and construction industries and environmental technology. Perhaps the greatest example is the ambitious $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal, which would be at the top of the list. Here was an opportunity for Canadian engineers and construction companies to bid on contracts, on what is, of course, a significant gateway for the shipping industry here in North America. The Panama Canal, as we know, serves as a key transportation hub between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is a significant driver of Panama's economy and many economies, including the Canadian economy.

Its expansion will lead to increased container traffic, some of which will access Canadian ports to supply the North American market. We know that post-Panamax vessels and super-post-Panamax vessels are now coming into ports around our country. This is a significant driver for the Canadian economy.

That said, the project for this canal's expansion is already well under way, so there is a timeliness aspect to moving forward on this free trade agreement. We must act quickly to ensure that Canadian companies will be given a fair opportunity to compete for a broad range of opportunities overseen by the Panama Canal Authority.

The opportunities exist well beyond this canal. In 2010, the Panamanian government announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years. This enormous infrastructure project has many projects that are well under way and progressing to build and improve roads and hospitals, social housing, bridges and airports. Among these projects is the Panamanian government's plan to construct a metro system, estimated at $1.5 billion.

These projects underscore the ambition of Panama's infrastructure plans and present, as I mentioned earlier, opportunities for Canadian companies and workers. These are just a few of the innovations that are happening in the region, where Canadian firms can position themselves and take advantage of this opportunity, should we enter into this free trade agreement in the region.

SNC-Lavalin is an obvious Canadian leader when it comes to these types of contracts. It was recently awarded a contract to help design and build the project infrastructure for the world-class copper mine in Panama. This award represents a tremendous opportunity, covering project infrastructure valued at $3.2 billion. The project is scheduled to be operational in 2016, and the mine is expected to have a life of about 30 years.

The Royal Canadian Mint has also been active through its production of the commemorative Balboa coins. B.C.-based Helitech supplies helicopter avionics technology to the Panamanian police. Kubik, a leading museum and gallery space creator from Mississauga, Ontario, has been awarded the design, development, installation and commissioning of Panama's biodiversity museum.

Canadian companies clearly have the expertise to meet Panama's development plans. These are competitive companies that are world leaders in many of these areas, particularly in engineering and design and construction.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would guarantee access for Canadian suppliers to these types of procurement opportunities, reducing the risk of doing business in the region. Moreover, the free trade agreement would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete and win on the same basis as their main competitors, mainly in the United States of America.

It is our job, as parliamentarians, as members of the government, to ensure that Canadian companies have secure access to opportunities of this nature.

This is very much in keeping with the plans and vision this government has for our country: to increase opportunities, to see our companies thrive in the international marketplace and continue to expand into areas like Panama and the region of the Americas.

They do this so that they can create opportunities, so they can create jobs, meaningful employment for Canadians, and prosperity for the shareholders in many of these companies, the employees and the communities.

I would now ask for the support of all members for the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I believe this would be good for Canada. It would be good for our relationship in the region and continued opportunities that will open.

Madam Speaker, the minister is looking for the support of the New Democratic Party, obviously, for this free trade deal. We have said over and over again that free trade must be based on consistent ethical behaviour on the part of those countries in the development of these relationships.

Quite clearly Panama, with its reputation for money laundering and its worldwide reputation for tax evasion, is one of those counties that is under question. We have heard some evidence that it has made some improvements in tax evasion, but at the same time, how are we guaranteed that this relationship will not actually lead to Canadian companies having more opportunities to move into areas of ethical behaviour that are really not appropriate?

If we are going into a free trade arrangement with a country that has a lower moral and ethical business environment, and we are bringing our companies in there on the basis of increased free trade, how is that going to improve the standing of Canadian companies in the world in a way we can respect as Canadians?

Madam Speaker, it is a legitimate question. The short answer is engagement. I would suggest to my colleague that the answer is through engagement, through encouraging countries like Panama to live up to those standards, the standards we expect of companies here in Canada.

We do know and he did reference the fact that Panama has come a long way. In fact, information that I have been provided, and that has been referenced by my colleague from London West earlier, indicates that in July the OECD formally placed Panama on a list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented international standards for exchange of information.

We know it is a signatory to the labour organization. We know it has, in 1998 in fact, under the declaration of fundamental principles of rights to work, come forward with greater attempts at fairness and transparency, all of those things that we encourage here in Canada. So, there are strong signals that are being sent that Panama is improving.

I would suggest that giving Canadians opportunities, the ability to compete, to set a standard and to lead by example would improve Panama's overall quality of life and its standards, and it would look to Canada for example.

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the two speakers from the Conservative Party, and I am wondering about a few things. One of the issues the last speaker talked about was development opportunities for Quebec and Canadian companies, including engineering companies like SNC-Lavalin.

I am wondering about the comments the previous speaker made about the hog industry in Quebec. He said that Quebeckers would potentially deprive themselves of exports in that sector. I checked my information and I noticed that we do not have any trade with Panama in pork. We trade with the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, North Korea, and the list goes on, yet we have nothing with Panama.

I have a question that I would like to ask the hon. member: what are the chances that Panama would export more pork to Canada, rather than the other way around?

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It is obviously important to have opportunities in agriculture and other industries.

What I can tell my hon. friend is that the elimination of tariffs is what the free trade agreement would accomplish. That certainly has implications for the Quebec hog industry, for the forest industry in my own region of Atlantic Canada and, in fact, across the country.

I am told that the pharmaceutical industry, the aerospace industry and all of these are just a few examples of industries that would benefit from the reduction or the elimination of tariffs.

We also, as I mentioned in my remarks, would see companies like SNC-Lavalin and engineering firms have the ability to compete on a more level playing field for construction and projects such as the Panama Canal.

I would encourage my colleague and all my colleagues opposite to support the free trade agreement. There has been significant debate in this Parliament and the last Parliament. Time is of the essence and time is wasting.

For our economy, this is important. We need to move forward productively.

This bill started life as Bill C-46 in the last Parliament. The bill came to an end when the election was called. It was introduced in November of this past year and is now called Bill C-24.

I point that out because nothing has changed. There was an opportunity for the government to listen to all the debate, in committee and in this House, on the old bill and to make some adjustments and changes so the rest of the House could find it acceptable, and it did not. As a result, New Democrats continue to oppose this bill, for that reason and a number of others.

In the last Parliament, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax haven situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as the poor record of labour rights in the country. Motions and amendments that would address the glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by our member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but were opposed and defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. The new legislation, despite a new and inspirational short title, does nothing to address the fundamental flaws of its previous manifestation, most importantly the tax disclosure issues that have yet to be meaningfully addressed, despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly from the Conservative government, as we raise this issue.

Just before the clause-by-clause review of the old Bill C-46, our member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed to the Standing Committee on Internation Trade a motion that would stop the implementation of the Canada–Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. The member's motion was defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who argued that the double taxation agreement Panama had agreed to sign was satisfactory.

Unfortunately, the double taxation agreement only tracks legal income, while a tax information exchange agreement would track all income, including that made through illegal means. Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a free trade deal.

Another issue is human rights in Panama and the complete failure of this trade agreement to ensure that these rights would not be denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. Two amendments put forth in committee would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right of collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama–Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions.

Like all other amendments, these were defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals. Unfortunately, this would create a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour, a serious problem already prevalent in Panama.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed. The first was regarding the definition of sustainable development. The amendment would define sustainable development as:

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

The second amendment was regarding the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would define sustainable investment as:

investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of environment, social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.

The NDP prefers a multilateral approach, based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals, since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude the rest. This puts weaker countries in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis the larger partners. A multilateral fair trade model would avoid these issues while protecting human rights and the environment.

New Democrats reaffirm our vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunity.

The federal government should stop exclusively pursuing the NAFTA model at the expense of all other alternatives, and then it should invest in other avenues of trade growth, including, above all, a vigorous trade promotion strategy that builds the Canadian brand abroad, along the lines of the Australian experience.

For example, it is shocking to see that the European Union spends in excess of 500 times more than Canada in promoting one single industry—in this case, its wine industry.

Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought of trade negotiations. The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes within an overall fair trade strategy the points that follow.

The first is to provide a comprehensive common sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industry. The government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss.

Second is ensuring that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

The fifth is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation must be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to a decision in the House.

In the last Parliament during the study of the bill, the committee heard testimony from Todd Tucker of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. Mr. Tucker made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has intentionally allowed the nation to become a tax haven. The tax haven situation in Panama is not improving under the current government and conditions in Panama. In addition, a trade agreement with Canada would only worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and to Canada.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee regarding the agreement on labour co-operation. She testified that while the International Labour Organization's core labour standards are invoked, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

It is interesting to note that when my colleague from London West spoke, he indicated that there is some agreement on another trade deal, the Canada-Jordan trade deal.

While New Democrats are not against free trade, we believe it is important that it should always be fair trade. Unfortunately, in this situation it does not happen.

To be fair to the Conservatives, they have moved a little toward the centre. There was a time not so long ago when they would not have even talked about the environment or human rights.

I see my time is up. I look forward to any questions the House may have.

Madam Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has done a very thoughtful analysis of this bill. He talked a lot about what others have talked about here, such as money laundering and the lack of democracy and workers' rights, but I would like to raise a point to see if he finds it a concern also.

Panama's environment has a wealth of biodiversity. It is one of the countries with the most biodiversity in the world. The agreement does not deal with that at all, or with any protections for the environment. Panama has a lot of serious problems, including water pollution from agricultural runoff, threats to the fishery resource, endangerment of wildlife habitats and biodiversity, deforestation on a massive scale, land degradation and loss of wetlands.

I wonder if the hon. member is also concerned about that and wants to add anything.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for Thunder Bay—Superior North for that question. It allows me an opportunity to continue with the line of thought that I had a moment ago, that is, talking about the environment and human rights.

The government has moved on these areas. Before, it did not talk about it; now it has some side deals on it.

To answer my friend's question, the problem with the side deal on the environment is that it does not have any teeth. There is no enforcement. My question to the government with this and all of the other trade deals is this: if the government has started talking about human rights and the environment, why leave them as side deals? Why not put them into the body of the agreement so that there is some enforcement capability, so that the environment and human rights become part of the whole trade agreement and there is some enforcement? I think government members would be very happy to see that.

Madam Speaker, I want to build on what my colleague was saying a minute ago. We know that even with NAFTA there is a framework for oversight on the environment and on labour, and that there is a panel to which citizens have recourse if they have a concern around what is happening with respect to the environment. It can be from Mexico, the United States or Canada.

That is not in this deal.

The notion that we cannot have binding and enforceable mechanisms in trade deals does not seem to make any sense. The government has said that is the best it can do, but we want responsible trade on this side, and the government wants to just simply sign off on whatever.

What does the member think about the mechanisms we have in existing trade deals, such as the ones I mentioned, and the ability to put those into future trade deals so that we actually have responsible trade?

My friend from Ottawa is absolutely right. Responsible trade is the goal. Unfortunately, the Conservatives see having any kind of mechanism to protect the environment or to protect human rights built into the body of an agreement as frivolous. They see it as an opportunity for people to voice their concerns, but they are not interested in their concerns.

Those mechanisms can be built. They can be built in to work for all of the parties. It is distressing to see that the government does not seem to be interested in trade deals or in any other matter in which there is some questioning of its decisions. I do not think that is good for democracy and I do not think it is good for free trade agreements.

There are models, and it would be very easy to build these into free trade agreements so that there is a possibility for discussion and for enforcement and so that the world would see Canada as a leader in fair and responsible trade.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. At a time when Canadian businesses are faced with tough economic challenges, the benefits that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide are tremendously important to our economy.

This government clearly demonstrates that our top priority continues to be jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity, growth and prosperity that will benefit Canadian businesses, workers and their families. That is why the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a priority for this government.

The economic benefits of the agreement are clear. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to one of the fastest-growing markets in the Americas.

Panama has a dynamic and rapidly expanding economy, with real GDP growth, estimated at 10.6% in 2011. Such remarkable growth produces tremendous economic opportunities. Once implemented, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will help facilitate access to these opportunities for Canadian companies. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide Canadian businesses with improved market access for goods and services, as well as a stable and predictable environment for investments in Panama.

Upon implementation of this agreement, Panama will immediately eliminate tariffs, representing approximately 90% of recent imports from Canada. Let me explain what these benefits actually mean for the various sectors of our economy.

First, for our agricultural sector, which in 2011 exported $23.6 million worth of agriculture and agrifood to Panama, the free trade agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on 89% of Canada's current agricultural exports. This is important considering the current tariffs on Canada's main agricultural exports to Panama range from zero to as high as 70%. Products that will receive immediate duty-free access include beef, pork, frozen potato products, pulses, malt, oil seeds, maple syrup and Christmas trees, a cornucopia of Canadiana.

The free trade agreement will also benefit exports in non-agricultural sectors through the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, including pharmaceuticals, wood, pulp and paper products, electrical and industrial machinery, vehicles and auto parts, information and communications technology, the aerospace sector, plastic products, fish and seafood, as well as iron and steel products.

For the pharmaceutical sector, the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 5% to 11%, will benefit Canadian exporters of many of these goods. For the pulp and paper sector, which exported to Panama $5.3 million worth of goods in 2011, the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 5% to 15% on certain paper products, will benefit Canadian exporters of goods, such as books, wallpaper, packing materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.

Tariff elimination of aerospace products will also enable Canadian exports to be more competitive in Panama. In 2011 Canada exported to Panama $8.1 million of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellers and airplane and helicopter parts. The immediate elimination of Panama's 3% to 15% tariffs on aerospace products will promote the competitiveness of Canadian exporters of these products.

The information and communication technology sector, a sector of particular importance in my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo, will also benefit from this agreement. Canada exports a variety of information and communication technology products to Panama, representing about $4 million in 2011, and these include examples such as radar systems and machines for the reception and conversion of voice images or other data. The elimination of Panama's 3% to 15% tariffs on information and communication technology products will help Canadian exporters expand their presence in the Panamanian market.

While Panama is a signatory to the WTO information technology agreement, or the ITA, which eliminates duties on certain information technology products, the majority of Canada's information and technology exports to Panama are not covered by the WTO ITA and will therefore benefit from the elimination of Panama's tariffs through this free trade agreement.

However, there is more. This agreement is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector, which as we all know has experienced some challenges in recent times.

In 2011 Canada exported $18.6 million of a variety of electrical and industrial machinery to Panama, including machinery for working rubber and plastics, machine tools for forging and stamping, as well as electrical switch boards and panels. A variety of Canadian machinery exports are currently subject to Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 3% to 15%. Tariffs on these products would also be eliminated.

As an additional case in point, I should also highlight the vehicles and auto parts sector. The elimination of Panamanian tariffs on vehicles and parts, which range from 3% to an astonishing 20%, will help Canadian businesses exporting these products.

As we can see, numerous sectors of the Canadian economy will benefit from this free trade agreement. By opening up foreign markets, we create opportunities for Canadian businesses in a wide range of sectors, which is crucial in our export-driven economy.

Certain members of Parliament continue to criticize the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, claiming that Panama is a “tax haven”. I would like to kindly remind those members that, in July 2011, the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that had substantially implemented international standards for the exchange of tax information, commonly known as the white list. This important achievement demonstrates Panama's commitment to combat international tax evasion, and I trust it will appease the concerns regarding taxation.

Panama is committed to the implementation of this free trade agreement and has already completed its domestic ratification process. Canada cannot stand by while other countries forge closer economic ties with this strategic partner. Panama's FTA negotiations with the European Union were concluded in May 2010 and this agreement could possibly enter into force before the end of this year.

Even more important to Canada, however, our main competitor in the Panamanian market, the United States, has completed an FTA with Panama that the United States Congress has already approved. The United States-Panama trade promotion agreement could very well enter into force this fall.

Both the United States and the European Union will soon benefit from their trade agreements with Panama. If Canada does not quickly implement its free trade agreement with Panama, Canadian companies will be at a competitive disadvantage as competitors benefit from preferential access to the Panamanian market.

For all of these reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the swift implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

In spite of what Conservatives accuse, New Democrats do believe in trade. We do want to expand Canadian business and we do want to generate economic growth. However, the bill overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. New Democrats believe that we can do trade without it being ultimately harmful to the citizens of those countries and to the environment.

The NDP believes in free trade that is fair, viable and realistic, a fair trade policy that, as part of an effective trading strategy, prioritizes social justice, strong public sector social programs, poverty elimination, and a trade policy based on sustainable fair trade. These should be the guiding principles for trade negotiations, not afterthoughts.

The NDP is calling on the federal government to stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA-based model and consider other alternatives. It should explore other ways to increase trade. There is another, better model of trade relations that could be established with Panama or any other country, a model that would include the following elements within a comprehensive fair trade strategy.

First, it includes a comprehensive and rational impact analysis for all international agreements to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are good for Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs.

Second, this model includes a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they will support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, this model follows the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, this model includes the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements should respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, under this model, every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable. The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fairness, sustainability and equity. This is how we can and should pursue real and sustainable economic growth, because sustainability will result in long-term economic health and prosperity for our country and the countries with which we do trade.

The NDP opposes this bill on free trade between Canada and Panama for one specific reason: we are worried about the rights of workers in Panama and we suspect that this trade agreement contains no provisions to ensure that the rights of Panamanian workers are not violated, as they have been in the past.

The New Democrats want the kind of growth that is mutually beneficial for our trading partners and their citizenry, not only because it is ethically right to do so but also because it is a safer long-term investment that will yield better growth over time.

Canada and Panama are not equals in trade, but the types of agreements and trade policies in the bill are meant to be between equal industrialized nations. One size does not fit all. We cannot be using this kind of trade agreement when we are talking about a country that is developing.

The reality is that our negotiations with Panama are exploitative. One-third of its population lives in extreme poverty. We want its resources but it will not act in good faith with its citizens to sell them to us. Canada must not take advantage of the needy in developing countries for us to grow economically.

We need to be more flexible in our trade policies so that they are suitable to the countries that we are brokering our deals with.

It should be clear by now that the NDP can only support trade deals when Canada can ensure that the foreign workers who labour to put money in our pockets and in the pockets of Canadian corporations and shareholders are entitled to the same human rights that Canadian workers enjoy. To strive for anything else would be pure hypocrisy.

If we sign a deal with Panama, it should offer Panamanians the right to collective bargaining, just like Canadians enjoy.

Panama has a bad human rights record. The House of Commons committee that studied this agreement heard some very compelling testimony about the fact that the Republic of Panama is a tax haven.

A tax haven is not exactly the type of country with which we should be negotiating this type of agreement. We should be negotiating with industrialized countries. This is a sign of problems to come for Canada.

Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement, which is a red flag. It is very troubling, given the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.

This is extremely worrying. Panama refusing to sign a tax exchange information agreement is hugely problematic because such an agreement tracks illegal income, as well as legal income. There is an utter lack of transparency around Panama's tax system because, as the OECD has recognized, it is a tax haven for illegal activities, such as harbouring drug cartel money from Mexico and Guatemala. These drug cartels are wreaking havoc on the populations of countries like Mexico and Guatemala.

A few weeks ago, I was in Chile at the ParlAmericas delegation meeting about the summit for women parliamentarians of the Americas. We were talking about the violence against women in these countries, which is often linked to drug money, to illegal trafficking and to very well-coordinated problems that happen in South America, in Central America specifically. We should not be negotiating trade agreements with countries like Panama that do not allow us to see where this money is going when there is a problem that, collectively as the Americas, we are trying to solve. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to this extremely destructive source of illegal drug trade and the systems that facilitate that trade, such as Panama's tax havens.

The NDP cannot support this bill. We have tried to propose amendments to it. For example, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed amendments on sustainable development and responsible investment. Since the amendments were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, it is clear that there is no hope left of working together to conclude a good agreement.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her excellent speech. I would like to reiterate a few things she said. For one, the NDP are not against free trade agreements. However, we want good agreements that are well thought out. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in this agreement, as my colleague pointed out.

Moreover, at the end of her speech, she mentioned amendments moved by our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster concerning workers' rights. He proposed an amendment that would define sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected, to the detriment of workers in Panama.